DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Is It More Dangerous for a Black Man to Carry a Gun Legally Than a White Man?">Previous Post
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: What Makes Your Blood Boil?">Next Post

I found the above Fudd-tacular video at “From Executive Producer Irshad Manji, Moral Courage TV tells the stories of people who are fighting corruption in their faith, culture, or workplace,” the site proclaims. “Whether they are standing up to a bully, breaking up a gang, or simply seeking truth, the heroes of our stories refuse to fail.”

desantis blue logo no back 4 smallIt is my considered opinion that carrying a gun is a highly moral activity. It demonstrates an individual’s realization that we don’t live in a world “where everyone feels safe” — because we aren’t safe from criminal predation, psychotics acting out and government tyranny. And never will be.

In fact, I reckon any [capable by their own standard] American male who accepts his responsibility to protect himself, the lives of his family, his community and country should carry a gun. Safely. It’s the right thing to do. Yes?

DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: Is It More Dangerous for a Black Man to Carry a Gun Legally Than a White Man?">Previous Post
DeSantis Gunhide Question of the Day: What Makes Your Blood Boil?">Next Post


  1. Yes, good people should carry a gun. But we need good elected people to make this a reality. Not the criminal ooze we have now.

    • We would need several amendments to the Constitution to do that. Things like major punishments for any politicians who voted for or signed a law that is later found to be unconstitutional, term limits, a restoration of the 10th amendment, an amendment stating that you cannot vote or legislate away another person’s rights or property, etc.

      • The Constitution as it currently exists is sufficient. The problem is that our courts conveniently “interpret” the Constitution to be something that it is not. Just look at what SCOTUS has done with the Commerce Clause: Wickard v. Filburn [growing of private wheat] and National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius [Obamacare].

        • The Constitution does not need to be “interpreted” or “reinterpreted” by politicians or courts. The word and intent of the Constitution exists in the words left to us from the time of it’s writing. For example, James Madison and George Mason penned the 2nd Amendment. It was edited a number of times until it reached what was finally included in the enumerated amendments. Madison and Mason were called by the several state legislatures to appear before them and explain the word and intent of the 2nd Amendment during the Constitution ratification process. Their words are recorded in the minutes of those legislatures which still exist today. Their words also are left to us in their individual personal writings (journals, periodicals, etc). Their words and intent are left to us in two collections known as the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers. The fact that the Constitution, including the 2nd Amendment, was ratified by the state legislatures, indicates that the people of the time had a common understanding of what it all did and did not mean. The fact that from 1775 to 1934, the 2nd Amendment’s word and intent did not change, and the people and government continued to view it in the same light. That We the People freely adopted every new firearms technology with no interference from the government. That We the People were free to possess weapons of war as evidenced by the fact that Confederate soldiers were allowed to retain the weapons they carried during the Civil War upon swearing an oath to the union.

          That following WWI, We the People freely possessed Thompsons, Browning Automatic Rifles (BARs), and Colt .45 pistols, until the government back-doored a change to the civil right of the people by passing the National Firearms Act of 1934 rather than follow the Constitutional mandate for an amendment to change a civil right. The Founders, particularly Thomas Jefferson stated that any change to the rights of the people required the participation of all the people; that it could not be left to politicians else they would possess the power to change (infringe) any and all the rights of the people whether the people agreed or not.

          Consider; in 1920 it took an amendment to ban alcohol. It took a second amendment in 1933 to end prohibition. And alcohol is not even a right of the people. In the case of the NFA, the government acted on an excuse of “public safety” involving, essentially a very small segment of the population; criminals – the gangs in places like Chicago, and gangsters like John Dillinger, Bonnie and Clyde, etc. After passage, those entities still possessed and used those weapons. The government may also have enacted the NFA in response to the killing of the assassination of Anton Cermak, the Mayor of Chicago by Italian immigrant and naturalized citizen Giuseppe “Joe” Zangara . Zangara shot Cermak and four others in Miami, Florida on February 15, 1933, during a speech by United States President–elect Franklin D. Roosevelt. Roosevelt himself may have been the intended target, though this was never established, but was unharmed. Again, a very small segment (assassins) of the population balanced against the rights of millions.

        • The Constitution as it is is clearly NOT perfect or politicians would not be able to flout it with impunity. I’m simply recommending additional safeguards for our freedom so that the scumbag politician loophole will be (mostly) closed.

        • DaveW gets my VERY WELL DONE SIR golden eagle award . I have written his very thoughts more times than I can count and never was I able to so succinctly convey a truth so evident .
          God bless DaveW !

    • NO , Only good men and women who can responsibly do so . If you cannot remember what you did with your keys or lose them occasionally or misplace your wallet or cell phone or behave in any other irresponsible activities , like driving drunk or road rage . DON”T CARRY A GUN .
      I know it’s your right , but other people will pay dearly for your behavior if you screw up . Become responsible 1st .

  2. Ideally, yes. However, we should make sure not to berate or shame anyone who simply chooses not to as long as they respect our right to do so.

    • ^This. Especially if the person in question isn’t responsible for the safety of others. But even then, as long as people are willing to leave me alone, my inclination is to give them the same courtesy.

  3. I do, and believe it is a morally imperative thing a citizen can do. Note wrote CAN…did not write should. A choice of my liberty to carry a gun for personal – lawful – self defense.

  4. Yes. Next question.

    This little sophist cuck needs to remember that my right to keep and bear arms is not limited to “sporting” weapons.

    The 2nd amendment was deliberately written to give the citizens of the United States a fighting chance against the military forces either the US or foreign powers. That means that the 2nd amendment protects my right to own… Machine-guns, mortars, rocket launchers, automatic grenade launchers, MANPADS, etc… Basically, everything that a citizen militia would need to fight a modern military force should be freely available on the open market with zero government regulation.

    • “everything that a citizen militia would need to fight a modern military force should be freely available”

      Any time such a situation actually occurred, all would be available immediately, costing only a bullet or 2. Shoot the enemy, take his gear. Claiming we need to be able to freely purchase grenades or mortars just makes us look silly and paranoid.

      • Yeah… I don’t care how it “makes us look”… A right is a right. It is not subject to regulation, legislation, registration, or the democratic process. I prefer to know what gear I have, and have owned it long enough to be proficient in its use. For example, there is no reason I should not be able to buy a M203 launcher and chalk rounds to practice with at a hardware store.

        • Honestly this is a tough one for me, but I think pwrserge get’s it right in his last line there. I’m not a 2A absolutist, I agree with Scalia on “reasonable restrictions”. I just happen to think that the vast majority of restrictions are unreasonable. But no, you don’t need a tactical nuke and you shouldn’t be allowed to have one. After a certain capability for destruction is reached I think items need to be restricted and at a lesser threshold they need to be controlled to some degree.

          Real, honest to God, military hardware should be available to civilians with certain restrictions on the rounds you can use/have under certain conditions. So yeah, you should be able to buy a M203 and chalk practice/smoke rounds from your LGS or hardware store. There should also be a system where you can fire the others like HE and frag rounds under certain limitations (like a specific place to do it). Then if it all hits the fan you simply hit up your local National Guard or other reserve armory for your 40mm rounds and go to town on that foreign or domestic enemy.

          Obviously MGs should be legal for sale at your LGS. If you really want a MANPADS unit, and can afford one, go ahead and get a FIM-92 but on that I would argue that actual missiles for it should be controlled rather heavily, as in you can’t have one in your house. You can practice with your unit at an appropriate place but you don’t get to take live rounds home with you. (Sorry, I don’t buy into the idea that every swinging dick should have access to a real, honest to God SAM simply by opening up the gun safe.) I would apply the same logic to anti-vehicle missiles as well. For something like artillery I’d be OK with people owning what they wanted and I’d apply the laws like I would to guns: misuse this thing and there will be consequences.

          My reasoning for lesser restrictions on artillery is that such weapon’s platforms are extremely expensive so the number of owners would be limited and they’re not exactly something you can move discretely. It’s pretty obvious when someone moves their Howitzer. It’s not so obvious if someone tosses a SAM in their trunk and heads to the local airport because their vindictive ex-wife is on that flight to Cancun.

        • Hey, if I want to drop 20k of my own money to get the exact same gear I was issued when I was a 1371, that should be nobody’s business but mine and my accountant’s.

          I can agree that the heavy ordinance should be kept under lock and key… at your local police station to be handed out at a minute’s notice. (Mind you, I don’t consider anything not designed to destroy large vehicles to be “heavy ordinance”.)

        • Ah, another reason to differ. I cannot imagine any scenario in which any of my armaments should be locked up at a police station! A very bad precedent, next it would be your sidearm. Check it out if (you can prove) you need it.

        • serge:

          I wouldn’t go so far as to say it should be locked up at a police station, but you could have “explosives ranges” just like the cops where you can practice with your LAW or your Stinger or whatever else you wanted and have the items treated like guns in Britain to some extent (You can’t take this home with you unless SHTF). If you just wanted to go off in the woods and pop a few off though I think that’s where you use the chalk rounds or smoke markers and they should be unrestricted for that purpose.

          My point, very simply is that I don’t think you can have completely uncontrolled civilian access to the ability to shoot down aircraft or blow up ground based vehicles at range because people will get stupid with that.

          In terms of what you can keep “on tap” in your house firearms I don’t care about, but I’d probably put some sort of limit on the amount of HE you could have. Like, you can buy however much you want of C4 or comp B if you want but you have to leave most of it at your “explosives range” lockup and can only have say… 5lbs in your house. You could have hand grenades but a there’s some sort of limit on them, if for no other reason than having 500 M67s in your house is a serious hazard in case of fire.

        • I think we can split the difference. Anything rocket propelled you need to keep locked up. Grenades and rifle grenades you can keep a personal combat load. (Say a dozen of each.) High explosives are mostly harmless actually. C4 tends to burn in a fire rather than explode. I’ve seen shavings taken off of a brick to use as a fire starter before.

      • Hmmm, well LarryinTX. “Paranoid and fearfu”l for stating the obvious and historically accepted meaning of the second,amendment? That accepted meaning that our founding fathers meant? To the point that the owning of Cannon and mortars by private citizens was the accepted norm?

        It also sounds a lot like that I heard, even from gun owners, when I started started OC’ing almost ten years ago.

        Now, ten years later, I don’t much hear that OC’ING a pistol is just me being paranoid, fearful and just being a John Wayne wanna be .

        We need to challenge the current misunderstanding of the 2nd amendment If we want to change it back to it’s original intent of our founders, In the mind of the publuc.

    • “sophist cuck”

      I love it.

      I love that this term is spreading.

      It represents a pushback against the evil Statists that have gained WAY too much power in the “Land of the Free.”

    • Anti-gunners would say the Founders never meant the people to have firearms to overthrow their government. What they ignore is that the Founders had just done exactly that. England was the legitimate government of the colonies. England had been violating the rights of the colonists which the common people of England enjoyed. Financially, a hammer forged in the colonies, had to be shipped to England to receive a tax stamp, before being shipped back to the colonies to be sold, thus increasing the cost. meanwhile an English citizen in London made a hammer and sold it. Colonial merchant seamen were involuntarily taken off ships on the high seas and forced into pressed labor for British warships. Colonists were forced to provide quarters in their homes for soldiers, and to provide them with food, drink, and services (laundry and such) without compensation; an illegal act in England. Under English law, any citizen had the right to petition the government for redress of grievances, and the government was obliged to investigate the claim and compensate the individual if the complaint was found to be legitimate. In the case of colonists, grievances were routinely ignored.

      On April 14, 1775 – Massachusetts Governor Gage is secretly ordered by the British to enforce the Coercive Acts and suppress “open rebellion” among colonists by using all necessary force.

      On April 18, 1775 – General Gage orders 700 British soldiers to Concord to destroy the colonists’ weapons depot, and to confiscate private weapons and munitions from colonists.

      That night, Paul Revere and William Dawes are sent from Boston to warn colonists. Revere reaches Lexington about midnight and warns Sam Adams and John Hancock who are hiding out there.

      At dawn on April 19, about 70 armed Massachusetts militiamen stand face to face on Lexington Green with the British advance guard. An unordered ‘shot heard around the world’ begins the American Revolution. A volley of British muskets followed by a charge with bayonets leaves eight Americans dead and ten wounded. The British regroup and head for the depot in Concord, destroying the colonists’ weapons and supplies. At the North Bridge in Concord, a British platoon is attacked by militiamen, with 14 casualties.

      British forces then begin a long retreat from Lexington back to Boston and are harassed and shot at all along the way by farmers and rebels and suffer over 250 casualties. News of the events at Lexington and Concord spreads like wildfire throughout the Colonies.

      Colonists possessed personal arms superior to the arms of the British Army. During that time, opposing forces formed en-mass, line upon line, and marched toward each other. No accuracy was required when shooting into a mass of bodies on either side. The colonists, however, hunted and dealt with Native American war parties in the extensive forests of the new land. This required a firearm which was more accurate and with greater range, which became important factors in an ability to pick off officers and senior enlisted leaders of the opposition. So much for the anti-gunner view that the people should not have firearms equal to the military since they had superior weapons to those of the British Army. Anti-gunners would not likely support people having cut down shotguns, yet the British Marines stationed aboard war vessels used the “blunderbuss” loaded with scrap iron, broken pottery, and anything else to sweep the decks of resistance from the decks of opposing vessels. British Marine snipers also manned the rigging with more accurate rifles to take out resistance. Neither of these were generally used since the warships preyed mostly on unarmed merchant vessels.

      Clearly, anti-gunners do not research history since so much of it negates their talking points.

      • Don’t try to pretend the Revolution was won by American riflemen. It wasn’t. Only a few engagements involved significant participation of riflemen who affected the outcome of the battle such as Cow Pens and King’s Mountain. Most Patriots were armed with muskets.

        • To be fair, the American Revolution was, like any other insurgency, not won on open battlefields. The numerous small skirmishes fought all over the country had much more effect than the few decisive battles of the campaign. In those small skirmishes, riflemen had a rather disproportionate impact.

        • pwrserge…

          Francis Marion for the win.

          I read a book about him when I was in elementary school…maybe 4th or 5th grade. I’ve admired him greatly ever since.

          I few years ago, I researched his background and efficacy a bit more deeply and my admiration grew. Fascinating bit of history to be sure.

          And Morgan and the boys at King’s Mountain learned a bunch from the Cherokee. It paid off.

  5. Sure, if they want to. None of my business, actually. But I’ll tell you… I have a great deal more respect for people who carry. And understand what and what not to do with it.

    • I travel all over the country and carry. Only one of my customers knows this. When asked if I was carrying in his building, I replied no due to anti gun signage, its locked in the car. He’s only comment was your authorized to carry in the building.

  6. Your basic premise requires a positive role model and image of the American male that is sorely lacking. Basic behaviors and acceptance of the role of provider, fixer, protector, in whatever form that takes, needs to be encouraged and supported in our society. It isn’t really.

    A key part of that is educating men about the right of self-defense, and the realities of it. If they should so choose to then consider that a duty, so much the better. But the gun needs will, skill and good judgment. It is probably the epitome of that responsibility and duty.

  7. Yes, along with a pocket knife, wristwatch, spending money, and a clean handkerchief (just in case).

    • I add a cigarette lighter to all that, the ability to start a fire might be important, plus they are small and inexpensive.

      • Not to mention handy for self-defense, if you need more power than your fist but less than a gun or knife.

  8. I think all good men should at least consider it. It’s a personal choice, and one that comes with responsibility. I don’t want anyone unwilling to accept the responsibility to carry, frankly. But I realize it’s up to them, not me.

  9. Just a couple “common sense” things to think about while normalizing open carry… the following problems still exist and need to be addressed:

    The police need to fix their training so their officers use deadly force as a last resort and if their life is actually being threatened (not just a suspicion or reaction of a perceived threat).

    They also need to have the exact same level of scrutiny that an armed citizen is burdened with when it comes to employing deadly force and the punishments for breaking these rules should also be equal. No more unions and free passes.

    As for the title of “law enforcement” officer, know the damn carry laws of your state. Seriously, it’s embarrassing.

    Finally, reform the PD to get rid of all the damn attitudes of superiority and making money of civilians for minor crap.

    The Police exist to enforce the law of the land, not be assholes to the public and try to extort fines from people for a paycheck or bonus. That’s how you cultivate “us for them” — when you make civilians an exploitable resource.

    Civilians pay their salaries and they refuse to acknowledge or know how to treat open carriers, there will always be problems.


    • TLDR:

      There are three types of carry:

      1. Concealed
      2. Open
      3. Law Enforcement

      There should only be two types of carry, 1 and 2, and all the same universal gun rules should apply to the carrier, regardless of occupation.

    • I completely agree. And I live in Illinois where CC is fairly new and cops are positively regarded about it (or worse prejudiced against it).

  10. Notice the emphasis on feeling safe but not necessarily being safe… just thought I’d point that out.

    I think it’s a 100% personal decision. Some people just are not wired to actually use a gun in a situation where they need it, they’re simply not capable of actually shooting another human being.

    If you can’t or won’t kill another person then don’t carry because you’re more likely to end up arming the bad guy or his buddy than you are to do anything useful and in a situation like that you’re dead unarmed and equally dead armed and unwilling.

  11. I know plenty of good people with balls (or ovaries) the size of raisins. If they want to carry, that’s fine and I’m all for it. But really, what would be the point? The gun isn’t going to shoot itself.

  12. Well yes, if you are a good enough man to create a family and support that family, you should also have the choice of how to protect that family, i would say the term “good man” is in the perspective of those using the term, personally i believe i am a good man, that has learned from my bad moments and judgments, I’ll never say I have always been a good man, and anyone who does is probably full o shit, but I do carry, daily, and to protect my family, i have absolutely no question in my mind if I could end a fellow humans life, if they gave me good enough reason to do so, hurt my family and I will end anyone without hesitation, otherwise I will go on about my buisiness, gun in tow, and everyone else goes about their buisiness, with or without, their choice.

  13. “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” — Edmund Burke

  14. Any man with a wife and/or kids has a duty to protect them, in my opinion.

    It’s not for me to tell any man what tools he should use to meet that responsibility. But for any man who chooses not to carry, I have a few questions:
    1) Whose job is it to protect your wife and kids from the evils of this world? If you say “the police,” I’ll laugh in your face and ask how long you think it will take for them to get here.
    2) If it is your job to protect them, how will you accomplish that? If not with a gun, what tools will you use?

    Perhaps someday there will be other tools, perhaps even less-than-lethal tools, that are just as effective at stopping a deadly threat as today’s lead-slinging things that go bang. But that day is not here.

      • And I guess that’s a truthful answer.
        But hopefully it will make him think, at least once in a while.

        • Odd question.
          Why do I care if my fellow law-abiding citizens put some thought and planning into protecting themselves and their families? Well, I guess it’s because I don’t want to see them victimized. And in an encounter with evil, I would rather see good prevail. I’m kinda funny that way.

  15. Yes, always and everywhere. No one has any authority to tell me I can’t carry my chosen means of self-defense on my own body, period.

    Once there are none but good men and women, with no trace of anything but goodness remaining, good men can stop carrying guns.

    • I was going to say the same:

      —In fact, I reckon any [capable by their own standard] American male who accepts his responsibility to protect himself, the lives of his family, his community and country should carry a gun. Safely. It’s the right thing to do. Yes?—

      Any “AMERICAN” male female or other.

  16. The sporting argument got its start in Germany before WWII.
    The second amendment is for saving our nation if a government decides to take our rights away.

  17. There are good men who are mentally unsound. There are good men who are irresponsible. There are good men who do drugs, etc.

    By the same token, there are bad people who are responsible, mentally sound and law-abiding.

    If someone is responsible, mentally sound and law-abiding, they should be afforded the privilege of carrying a gun. Regardless of whether they are kind, just, or ethical.

      • I’m saying that one’s right to protect oneself and his/her family is not and should not be dependent on someone else’s judgement as to the quality of his/her character, and that there are people of good character who either might not trust themselves or should not trust themselves with the responsibility of owning/carrying a firearm, people who are clinically depressed being a good example.

      • I apologize for misspeaking. My response to the other poster makes my point more clearly.

  18. We have a duty to protect our families, especially our children. This duty is so obvious that it manifests itself in child abuse, child neglect, child endangerment, and child abandonment laws.

    We also have a lesser duty to look out for the interests of our neighbors, including their security, out of simple respect for human life and human dignity. Of course your neighbor is primarily responsible for their own personal security … although we should be ready and willing to assist. Furthermore, there is a pragmatic reason to help your neighbors with their personal security: the violent attacker who targets your neighbor could target you next if they escape. For that reason alone we should all work together to stop violent criminals.

    For these reasons, parents who care for children should have an effective means to protect those children from harm. And neighbors should have an effective means to stop/capture violent criminals. In most cases, that would mean having a firearm readily available.

    So, yes, most people should be armed for defense of self, family, and community.

  19. hmm thats a pretty loaded question. it assumes alot. its hard for me to even answer it impartially. We WANT to say yes because that would mean there are more “good” people carrying than “bad” people, hopefully. But there are plenty of good people that go bad for one reason or another. which is why the anti-s say no one should have one. a complete false equivalency. i would LIKE it if more good people carried but saying they SHOULD is kinda hard for me to completely agree with. i don’t know why.

  20. I couldn’t get through 20 seconds of this Fudd’s bullshit. You guys should know by now how sensitive my Fuddar is and it was pegged at 11 with this “retired police officer”. The Fudd said he likes bullseye shooting. Does he hit many by resting the barrel on the sandbag? I shut it down when he asked “do you want to live in a world where you feel like you have to carry a gun?” “Don’t you wan’t to live in a world where you feel safe?”.
    I had to go straight to Youtube and voice my opinions. Got an immediate reply from the channel and was told that the guy can’t be a Fudd because he used to be a cop. SMH, FP, no…Double FP.

  21. The only truly free Americans are those that are legally armed.

    People that will never carry on their person will never understand.

    • “The only truly free Americans are those that are legally armed.”

      Um, no: anyone who has actually considered the options and made a personal choice are truly free, including those who have decided to be unarmed. Only those who don’t think and just go along aren’t free.

  22. Did you notice the falsehoods imbedded in the video’s question?
    Do you want a world where everybody has guns and live in fear, or, where people don’t have guns and live nice, calm lives without fear? (I’m paraphrasing, I really, really didn’t want to have to listen again to get the exact wording.)

    The message that we need to get across to people like him is that he’s got it backwards and obviously so if you understand the ways of the world. We’re more likely to live nice, calm, peaceable lives with most of the people armed and more likely to live in fear without them.

  23. Why would this be limited to men? Every good man or woman should carry a gun. Every good person should carry a gun and train and learn to use it well. Period.

    I carry. My wife carries. And we both practice and train weekly. And you can take it to the bank, both of us will do what needs to be done to protect innocent life.

  24. I don’t normally carry a gun because it makes me feel safer. I am normally in places where i am going to be about as safe as one can be. I carry because stuff happens. I learned this on 9-11 and had it reinforced the following summer when my officemate was shot and murdered by the DC snipers close my home. It is not that carry a gun would have made a difference in either case but there are many black swan events involving both two and four legged threats were it would give me a better chance to walk away unharmed.

    The truth is that unless you live in a high crime neighborhood or carry money or valuables for a living your chances of being a crime victim are effectively zero so not carrying is as rational as carrying. Crime is something that happens to the other guy, There will always be someone who is the other guy’s other guy. i would prefer that not to be me.

    As far should all good men, whatever that means, carry a gun. That is just silly. Neither carrying nor not carrying makes one a good anything. Now, every man should be able to field strip a 1911 pistol, field stripping a modern pistol requires no skill and even pajama boy can do it, and be able to hit a target 80% of the time at 10 yards with it. A real man need not like it but it is man skill like changing a tire.

  25. Well wasn’t that fuddtastic! I also enjoy bullseye shooting. Most of the people I shoot bullseye with also shoot AR’s, AK’s or other scary rifles. And unlike this poser, we shoot them off hand, rests are for adjusting sights and new shooters.

    • “And unlike this poser, we shoot them off hand, rests are for adjusting sights and new shooters.”

      +1 and so true.

Comments are closed.